Although it doesn't appear in McGregor's dictionary, I presume this word means "and." Is this correct? Is it pronounced va, or possibly o? I am not familiar at all with Urdu, but isn't the o sound written with the same letter as v?

Although it doesn't appear in McGregor's dictionary, I presume this word means "and." Is this correct? Is it pronounced va, or possibly o? I am not familiar at all with Urdu, but isn't the o sound written with the same letter as v?

Click to expand...

To place this "va" in its proper perspective, here is a couplet from the immortal Urdu poet, Ghalib.

Indeed the ShaiKh and the Brahman are under scrutiny for their loyalty.

[Translations rarely do justice to the original!]

This "va' is part and parcel of Urdu language and it is especially prevalent in poetry. It is pronounced both as "va" and "-o-", but the "-o-" pronunciation is the norm when reciting poetry. Along with the "izaafat"* and this "-o-" known as "vaav-i-rabt or "vaa'o 'aatifah" [the joing vaa'o/the conjunctive particle], a distinct Persian flavour is fused into Urdu, for these features are ultimately of Persian origin.

...This "va' is part and parcel of Urdu language and it is especially prevalent in poetry. It is pronounced both as "va" and "-o-", but the "-o-" pronunciation is the norm when reciting poetry. Along with the "izaafat"* and this "-o-" known as "vaav-i-rabt or "vaa'o 'aatifah" [the joing vaa'o/the conjunctive particle], a distinct Persian flavour is fused into Urdu, for these features are ultimately of Persian origin.
...

Click to expand...

QP SaHEb,

Just to add a little more and also mention one important point.

The wa is ultimately from Arabic, I think, becasue in Pahlavi 'and' was 'ud'. Now it is possible that this ud gave to u / o we have now in Farsi and Urdu. But even in Farsi I've heard and read و as wa. It is of Semitic origin, I'm fairly sure.So I feel this waو व came to Persian then Urdu & Hindi from Arabic where it has many meanings. Often it is used to mean and but is also used for contrast, for emphasizing / strengthening what is meant etc., e.g.

جن و بشر – pronounced with full endings as jinnun wa basharun, but normally pronounced jinn wa bashar in Arabic, andjinn o bashar in Persian and Urdu, both in poetry and speech. Just like we also say qalam o kaaghaz to mean pen and paper.

Though the hand is weak, the eyes have vim and verveFor now let the goblet and the wine remain before me

We’ll of course read flyinfishjoe’s above example in Hindi as:

इस्लामाबाद व काबूलislaamaabaad wa kaabul

In Urdu we can read it both as:

إسلام آباد و كابلislaamaabaad o kaabul

and as,

islaamaabaad wa kaabul – by placing a stress here on wa in our speech we can also emphasize that both are involved / are together.For those who may not know / are getting confused, we usually use the "-o-" pronunciation also in normal speech and reading prose, apart from its use in poetry. So for the above example, we'd normally go for the first, i.e.the -o- form.

The wa is ultimately from Arabic, I think, becasue in Pahlavi 'and' was 'ud'. Now it is possible that this ud gave to u / o we have now in Farsi and Urdu. But even in Farsi I've heard and read و as wa. It is of Semitic origin, I'm fairly sure.

So I feel this waو व came to Persian then Urdu & Hindi from Arabic where it has many meanings. Often it is used to mean and but is also used for contrast, for emphasizing / strengthening what is meant etc., e.g.

جن و بشر – pronounced with full endings as jinnun wa basharun, but normally pronounced jinn wa bashar in Arabic, andjinn o bashar in Persian and Urdu, both in poetry and speech. Just like we also say qalam o kaaghaz to mean pen and paper.

Though the hand is weak, the eyes have vim and verveFor now let the goblet and the wine remain before me

We’ll of course read flyinfishjoe’s above example in Hindi as:

इस्लामाबाद व काबूलislaamaabaad wa kaabul

In Urdu we can read it both as:

إسلام آباد و كابلislaamaabaad o kaabul

and as,

islaamaabaad wa kaabul– by placing a stress here on wa in our speech we can also emphasize that both are involved / are together.

For those who may not know / are getting confused, we usually use the "-o-" pronunciation also in normal speech and reading prose, apart from its use in poetry. So for the above example, we'd normally go for the first, i.e.the -o- form.

Click to expand...

I knew it was Arabic because I knew it from Hebrew ( It is the same word used in Hebrew as well. The letter vav "ו" in Hebrew means "and.") and was surprised when I first encountered it in Hindi writing. I think it is just and alternative to "aur" for most Hindi speakers.

I knew it was Arabic because I knew it from Hebrew ( It is the same word used in Hebrew as well. The letter vav "ו" in Hebrew means "and.") and was surprised when I first encountered it in Hindi writing. I think it is just and alternative to "aur" for most Hindi speakers.

Click to expand...

After posting I too had a look at my Hebrew dictionary and there it was, the letter vav, for and ! So it obviously is Semitic! I had wondered if the Middle Persian ud -> the Modern Persian u / o, which we then adopted in Urdu. But apprently not as in Persian grammar textbooks too you see it as va and -o-, depending, and the former is a give away.

Of course! But that is how it came to be used originally in Urdu:و va / -o- = اور aur = and, finding its way into everyday Hindi: व va / -o- = और aur.

We use the -o- from fairly often as it makes speaking / reading smoother compared to the use of aur.

Interesting "innovation" of the use of Persian (Arabic?) va. In Urdu, rarely, is this "va" used with Indic words (e.g chiiKh-va-/-o-pukaar). But I don't ever remember reading din meN va raat meN...type of sentence. Not even 'din va raat meN".

The wa is ultimately from Arabic, I think, becasue in Pahlavi 'and' was 'ud'. Now it is possible that this ud gave to u / o we have now in Farsi and Urdu. But even in Farsi I've heard and read و as wa. It is of Semitic origin, I'm fairly sure.So I feel this waو व came to Persian then Urdu & Hindi from Arabic where it has many meanings. Often it is used to mean and but is also used for contrast, for emphasizing / strengthening what is meant etc., e.g.

جن و بشر – pronounced with full endings as jinnun wa basharun, but normally pronounced jinn wa bashar in Arabic, andjinn o bashar in Persian and Urdu, both in poetry and speech. Just like we also say qalam o kaaghaz to mean pen and paper.

Though the hand is weak, the eyes have vim and verveFor now let the goblet and the wine remain before me

We’ll of course read flyinfishjoe’s above example in Hindi as:

इस्लामाबाद व काबूलislaamaabaad wa kaabul

In Urdu we can read it both as:

إسلام آباد و كابلislaamaabaad o kaabul

and as,

islaamaabaad wa kaabul – by placing a stress here on wa in our speech we can also emphasize that both are involved / are together.For those who may not know / are getting confused, we usually use the "-o-" pronunciation also in normal speech and reading prose, apart from its use in poetry. So for the above example, we'd normally go for the first, i.e.the -o- form.

Click to expand...

The "va" in Persian being of Arabic origins is a possibility but I have my doubts.

Steingass provides the Classical Persian vowel system pretty accurately. As you have indicated, the word for "and" in Persian was -u- (equivalent to a pesh). When the Persian language began to be written in the Arabic alphabet which normally showed no short vowels, there was no real problem when a word like "gul" was simply written as "gl". But to indicate -u- for and, the next best thing was to use an Arabic letter which was connected to -u-, namely "waaw".

So, aab-u-havaa was written as آب و ھوا

du (two) as دو

tu (thou) as تو

chu (like) as چو

In all such words the -u- had a "pesh" sound, just like the pesh vowel in "gul". Even today, in Dari, the word for "two" is NOT "do" but, "du" and for "thou", it is "tu" and NOT "tuu" (as we pronounce the Persian تو nor "to" as the Iranians pronounce the تو).This -u- sound over a period of time became a majhuul -o-sound, as in "aab-o-havaa" and the Iranian "to" and "do". (Our Persian "tuu" could be influenced by our Urdu "tuu". Same goes for "do"). So, apart from the Dari "du" and "tu", the-u- sound on the whole has become-o-, just like the izaafat-i-, has become the majhuul -e- in Indo-Persian, Dari and Iranian Persian.

What is all this leading to. It is this representation of the original -u- with the Arabic Waaw, that could be a "polluting" factor in our thinking that the Persian '-u-' is of Arabic origins. It is quite possible that the letter waaw representing the sound -u-in the written documents began to be read as one would read an Arabic "waaw", ie. "wa". This then fluctuated between wa and va.

I don't have any scholarly proof for this. Just think of it as Qurehpor's hunch!!

I would agree with with QP SaHEb that in Urdu we don't use din wa raat. We always say din raat / raat din = day and night / night and day. Of course have shab o roz = raat aur din, which mean the same thing as the earlier forms. So we normally say:

It is this representation of the original -u- with the Arabic Waaw, that could be a "polluting" factor in our thinking that the Persian '-u-' is of Arabic origins. It is quite possible that the letter waaw representing the sound -u-in the written documents began to be read as one would read an Arabic "waaw", ie. "wa". This then fluctuated between wa and va.

I don't have any scholarly proof for this. Just think of it as Qurehpor's hunch!!

Click to expand...

I believe your hunch is quite right! In Middle Persian, logograms (huzvarishn) were often used where words were written according to their Aramaic meaning but pronounced according to Middle Persian. For example, shaah (king) was written MLK (Aramaic 'malka', cognate to Arabic ملك 'malik') but read as 'shaah'. (See more examples here). As far as I know the Persian use of و (or its Aramaic equivalent) began as a logogram for 'u' and continued in New Persian written in the Arabic alphabet, with و primarily representing 'u' (later 'o') and then later it began to be read as 'wa' (later 'va') as well.

I believe your hunch is quite right! In Middle Persian, logograms (huzvarishn) were often used where words were written according to their Aramaic meaning but pronounced according to Middle Persian. For example, shaah (king) was written MLK (Aramaic 'malka', cognate to Arabic ملك 'malik') but read as 'shaah'. (See more examples here). As far as I know the Persian use of و (or its Aramaic equivalent) began as a logogram for 'u' and continued in New Persian written in the Arabic alphabet, with و primarily representing 'u' (later 'o') and then later it began to be read as 'wa' (later 'va') as well.

"tatha" is hardly used, except in mythological TV serials! People would look at you askance if you were to use it.
"va" and "aivam" are thought to be more "literary"; hence, people sometimes use it, especially in print, to sound more refined. They are much less rare than "tatha" and used in all contexts, and at times spoken too ("aivam" seems to me spoken more than "va", but "va" written more - that is just my impression, I might be wrong).
"aur" is the commonly used word for "and". Some of the speakers who mix Hindi and English a lot might also use "and" itself.

"tatha" is hardly used, except in mythological TV serials! People would look at you askance if you were to use it.
"va" and "aivam" are thought to be more "literary"; hence, people sometimes use it, especially in print, to sound more refined. They are much less rare than "tatha" and used in all contexts, and at times spoken too ("aivam" seems to me spoken more than "va", but "va" written more - that is just my impression, I might be wrong).
"aur" is the commonly used word for "and". Some of the speakers who mix Hindi and English a lot might also use "and" itself.

"tatha" is hardly used, except in mythological TV serials! People would look at you askance if you were to use it.
"va" and "aivam" are thought to be more "literary"; hence, people sometimes use it, especially in print, to sound more refined. They are much less rare than "tatha" and used in all contexts, and at times spoken too ("aivam" seems to me spoken more than "va", but "va" written more - that is just my impression, I might be wrong).
"aur" is the commonly used word for "and". Some of the speakers who mix Hindi and English a lot might also use "and" itself.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much indeed Greatbear Jii for a very informative reply. I am quite surprised at the use of "va", and that too in spoken Hindi! In Urdu, "va" is used only in Persian type constructions. Would you say sentences like ,"maiN va Qureshpor aaj kal "va" par baHs kar rahe haiN"? "ham ne baazaar se ghaRii va juute Khariide"?

It is very interesting to see that you use this: "ham ne baazaar se ghaRii va juute Khariide".
We, and now I mean not just Urduphones from UP and Bihar but also the Hindiphone circles from the same area I happen to move in, do not use va like this, esp. in speech. We stick to the earleir grammatical rule of using it with words of Persian-Arabic origin. So your sentence for the likes of us would most commonly be: "ham ne baazaar se ghaRii aur juute xariide". However, in rapid-fire speech it can also sound like: "ham ne baazaar se ghaRii o juute xariide"(!). I've always understood this o as a truncation of aur.

Yes, I hardly think that people start wondering about from where do words originate before speaking, and so of course "va" is used for "and" regardless of word origins. I have never heard the "o" form though.

Well, this औ' which you are quoting from the eminent Hindi poet Harivansh Rai Bachchan's poetry, is not "va" व. It is a form of "aur", as used at times, many a time in poetry.

It is not व, which is used differently, and I have given examples too. Please refer to those.

Click to expand...

Let me quote someone who knows a little more than both you and me and by doing so close this chapter once and for all. This is from R.S.McGregor's Outline of Hindi Grammar, Third Edition , Oxford University Press (page 200) and I quote verbatim.

"Note also the Persian forms -ओ--o-, व va, used in expressions of a more or less stereotyped nature, the first very largely in expressions of specifically Urdu character, the second more widely.

So, you can see that the "va" whether pronounced "o" or "va" is linked to Hindi via Urdu.

As for Shri Harivansh Rai Bachchan, he was very much influenced by Omar Khayyam's Rubaa3iyaat (Quatrains) and translated them from Farsi to Hindi. "Madushaalaa" is also in the form of quatrains. The existence of Urdu words like "mai", "saaqii" and others and expressions such as मुसलमान औ' हिन्दू in the poem is therefore of no surprise. By the way he learnt his Urdu (at least the writing) from his mother. I believe his son Amitabh might also know Urdu. In "kyaa bhulaa'uuN kyaa yaad karuuN", he talks about his learning to read Urdu and Amit 's preoccupation with the same.

I have Hindi as mother tongue and I know the examples are too many... Many of my friends who speak pure Hindi (with fewer insertions of English and foreign words which are so common now in cities), they use व/ "va". Even I use it when I write in Hindi, but almost none in spoken Hindi, personally.

I have Hindi as mother tongue and I know the examples are too many... Many of my friends who speak pure Hindi (with fewer insertions of English and foreign words which are so common now in cities), they use व/ "va". Even I use it when I write in Hindi, but almost none in spoken Hindi, personally.

Click to expand...

At what point would "pure Hindi" cease being "pure Hindi"? How would you define "foreign words"? Is "fewer" quantifiable?

"tatha" is hardly used, except in mythological TV serials! People would look at you askance if you were to use it.
"va" and "aivam" are thought to be more "literary"; hence, people sometimes use it, especially in print, to sound more refined. They are much less rare than "tatha" and used in all contexts, and at times spoken too ("aivam" seems to me spoken more than "va", but "va" written more - that is just my impression, I might be wrong).
"aur" is the commonly used word for "and". Some of the speakers who mix Hindi and English a lot might also use "and" itself.

Click to expand...

In the small amount of Hindi literature that I have encountered, I have come across "aur" and "tatha" much more than "va". I have n't yet seen "evam" but no doubt this would be used in literature too. The point I am making is that "aur" and "tatha" appear to be much more common.

It is very interesting to see that you use this: "ham ne baazaar se ghaRii va juute Khariide".
We, and now I mean not just Urduphones from UP and Bihar but also the Hindiphone circles from the same area I happen to move in, do not use va like this, esp. in speech. We stick to the earleir grammatical rule of using it with words of Persian-Arabic origin. So your sentence for the likes of us would most commonly be: "ham ne baazaar se ghaRii aur juute xariide". However, in rapid-fire speech it can also sound like: "ham ne baazaar se ghaRii o juute xariide"(!). I've always understood this o as a truncation of aur.

Click to expand...

Also agree that it seems to be used in Hindi media rather than books so it is not literary usage in the end!May be more like journalese!

It is very interesting to see that you use this: "ham ne baazaar se ghaRii va juute Khariide".
We, and now I mean not just Urduphones from UP and Bihar but also the Hindiphone circles from the same area I happen to move in, do not use va like this, esp. in speech. We stick to the earleir grammatical rule of using it with words of Persian-Arabic origin. So your sentence for the likes of us would most commonly be: "ham ne baazaar se ghaRii aur juute xariide". However, in rapid-fire speech it can also sound like: "ham ne baazaar se ghaRii o juute xariide"(!). I've always understood this o as a truncation of aur.

Click to expand...

I've just spotted the similar construction in the Urdu text on the label of a well-known 'sharbat' that has been discussed on the forum before.
The text reads as follows: فرحت بخش پھلوں و پھولوں سے تیار کردہ -

I've just spotted the similar construction in the Urdu text on the label of a well-known 'sharbat' that has been discussed on the forum before.
The text reads as follows: فرحت بخش پھلوں و پھولوں سے تیار کردہ -

I don't see other possibility either, it is of course -va-. Thank you for your assistance!

Please accept my apologies for not having provided the transcription of Urdu text in this thread which is open for Hindi but there had been much reference to Urdu, Persian, Arabic and other Semitic languages (by the way, is it still the current name for those languages?) that I thought Urdu reference wouldn't have been uncalled for.

And it appears to occur in languages other than HU - सातपुड्याच्या कुशीतलं -सरदार सरोवर धरणाची निर्मितीही अशीच महाराष्ट्र व गुजरात यांच्या (Marathi). You can often see it in excessively Sanskritized Government of India usage. Plus I see examples of the वा form in Sanskrit, where it means "also/or/like" -
- Upanishads - "व्याघ्रो वा सिंहो वा वृको वा वराहो वा कीटो वा पतंगों (vyaghro va simho va vriko va kiiTo va patango - tiger also lion also wolf also boar also insect also moth)"

This seems like it might be a genuine proto-Indo-Iranian word, which would explain how it can be regarded as excessively Persian and excessively Sanskrit at the same time.

Click to expand...

The question posed here could easily be answered if one can quote occurrences of "va" व from Sanskrit literature. The existence ofو in Persian and Urdu is beyond question and examples can be provided at the drop of a hat!

The question posed here could easily be answered if one can quote occurrences of "va" व from Sanskrit literature. The existence ofو in Persian and Urdu is beyond question and examples can be provided at the drop of a hat!

Click to expand...

Well considering the facts:
a) वा is pretty rampant in Sanskrit and means something broader that includes 'and'. [Note that the Persian و is also usually pronounced वा - somewhat distinct from the व diction used in "shuddh" Hindi].
b) व is used much more frequently and freely in "pure register" Hindi as in "pure register" Urdu.
c) व is preferentially seen at a much higher frequency in Sanskritized religious literature.
d) In artificially Sanskritized speeches from government officials/politicians, व has a pretty large frequency.

All these indicate, at least to me, a likely tadbhavization process (वा → व) at play. Obviously this is not a direct reference precisely demonstrating such descent. Also, it doesn't rule out this being an instance of the "Persianization was re-Sanskritization" hypothesis. In other words Sanskrit forms that were lost in Prakrits which were restored due to Persian influence. श (sh) had earlier been given as a possible example of this. One cannot help but wonder if Pashto had-had the same influence that Persian did, would we today be pronouncing ष (x-sh mix) perfectly and then debating whether it came from Pashto or Sanskrit? How could this possibly ever be settled? I suspect it can't. Maybe by showing that it disappeared in an interim period and then reappeared, which is totally possible. People using 'व' that consider it highly Sanskritic are correct. It is. People who consider this highly Persian are also correct. It is. Even if श was reintroduced by Persian and then retroactively began to be applied to Sanskrit-descent words again, is pronouncing आकाश as "aakaash" instead of "aakaas" a Persianized thing to do? I can see how two people can legitimately have differing viewpoints on this even based on the same set of agreed-upon facts.

There are two words for “and” in Persian, which, confusingly, are both written as و.

There is the inherited Persian word u, from Middle Persian ud, from Old Persian uta. This is purely Indo-European. In modern Persian this is normally only used if the two words connected by it are in close junction.

Then there is the Arabic word wa. This is pure Semitic.

It is true that in Middle Persian (Pahlavi) the conjunction ud is written with the Aramaeogram W. Aramaic w-, wa- is indeed cognate with Arabic wa, but this has no bearing on New Persian or Hindi/Urdu. The Muslims in Persia and India could not read Pahlavi and were not affected by the vagrancies of Pahlavi spelling.

None of this has anything to do with Sanskrit vā, which is an enclitic and means “or”.

n. a weaver (?). a sort of incantation or मन्त्र (of which the object is the deity वरुण)

व 2

n.=प्र-चतस्

व 2

mfn. strong , powerful.

व 3

ind.=इव , like , as MBh. Ka1v. &c (in some more or less doubtful cases).

वा 1

ind. or (excluded , like the Lat.ve , from the first place in a sentence , and generally immediately following , rarely and only m.c. preceding , the word to which it refers) RV. &c &c (often used in disjunctive sentences ; वा-वा , " either " -- " or " , " on the one side " -- " on the other " ; न वा -- वा or न -- वा , " neither " -- " nor " ; वा न-वा , " either not " -- " or " ; यदि वा-वा , " whether " -- " or " ; in a sentence containing more than two members वा is nearly always repeated , although if a negative is in the first clause it need not be so repeated ; वा is sometimes interchangeable with च and अपि , and is frequently combined with other particles , esp. with अथ , अथो* , उत , किम् , यद् , यदिq.v. [e.g.अथ वा , " or else "] ; it is also sometimes used as an expletive)

^But doesn't this indicate a word of many connotations, including or, even, also, however, etc? On top of that you see many constructions in Sanskrit that use the form "A va B va C va D va E" when many objects are being presented in a connected way as alternatives or complements. Why couldn't this become an 'and' form? Otherwise, think about what you're saying - a Persian word which is rarely used in everyday organic ways in high-register Urdu is being used massively in high-Sanskrit register Hindi and Marathi, especially for religious purposes. Anything is possible, of course, but seems counter-intuitive. Why would this happen? Look at सुभाषित रत्न (hundreds of occurrences in this alone). Think of any two even loosely connected things and stick a व in between and run an exact search. More often than not I get hits. "तुलसी+व+सूरदास", "हिन्दी+व+संस्कृत", "मोटा+व+पतला", "लम्बा+व+छोटा", "लाहौर+व+अमृतसर", "फ़ारसी+व+संस्कृत", "कुत्ता+व+बिल्ली", "रूई+व+ऊन". And, since ओ/औ and व and very distinct in Devnagari, what would account for this? The only Persian route I can think of is that Persian influence made the word stick with a specific interpretation in HU/Marathi where it once had a broader meaning. च is of course common in Sanskrit for 'and', especially in Classical Sanskrit.

None of this has anything to do with Sanskrit vā, which is an enclitic and means “or”.

Click to expand...

fdb ji, interesting and useful. I looked at http://books.google.com/books?id=cWDhKTj1SBYC&pg=PA268 and it seemed to be delving into how Indo-Iranian (Avestan and Vedic) diverged from other IE in their treatment of va. Perhaps you can take a look and comment. It talks about "yuvaam" ("you two") and "enclitic forms of the dual".

Burrow is discussing a different word: Avestan vā “the two of us” (Vedic vām).

Click to expand...

Interesting. The more I think about it, the more the original hypothesis seems to be true: this is indeed a Persian borrowing into "pure" Hindi which has somehow made a place for itself and been massively adopted, especially for highly Sanskritized and/or religious purposes. Very interesting!